3D printing: a replicator and teleporter in every home

Share This article

In a few years, 3D printers will become a consumer electronics commodity. Today you can buy a MakerBot Thing-O-Matic, “the latest in cutting edge personal manufacturing technology,” for $2,500. You can plug it into your computer via USB, load up some freely-available 3D modeling software, and print stuff; it really is that simple. The only real barrier to mass adoption is the initial purchase price, and the printing material itself isn’t cheap either.

Both of these costs will tumble in coming years, however. Printing — or additive manufacturing — techniques will improve. 3D printers will speed up, and the choice of colors and finishes will expand. For now these magical printers are just the plaything of prototypers, inventors, and gadgeteers, but sooner rather than later they will find a place in the home. To begin with they will be attached to a family computer, but it’s safe to assume that wireless versions that can sit on the kitchen worktop won’t be far behind.

In other words, in a few short years, every household will have a device that’s capable of printing any solid object, and even basic mechanical objects. You might need to use a 3D modeling application today, but with sites like Thingiverse providing huge repositories of ready-to-print models, it is becoming increasingly easy to simply download a 3D design, right click it, and press “create.”

The next step will be 3D printers that come pre-loaded with popular designs. Imagine pressing the “bowl” or “cup” button on the 3D printer in the kitchen, followed by the “fork” or “spoon” button. It would even work for larger objects like cutting boards and colanders and laundry baskets — and it would be easy enough to provide fairly extensive customization, too: a stripy cup, with colors of your choosing, a narrower fork, a bowl that is perfectly tapered to support and grip an unwieldy watermelon, and so on.

With our current grasp of additive manufacturing, we could do these things now.

Now imagine the possibilities of 3D printing if you combined it with other technologies. Photofly, for example, turns photos of real world objects into digital 3D models. You could use Photofly today to take photos of your favorite mug and make a perfect copy with a 3D printer — it would be expensive, but it’s possible. Next, there’s the 3D printer that uses chocolate instead of plastic. We’re certainly a little way away from printing a chicken dinner, but it should be possible in the not-so-distant future. It won’t happen for many years, but what if we can also integrate chip fabrication techniques like lithography and atomic layer deposition into a 3D printer?

Which brings us onto the topic of replication and teleportation. At some point in the future we will be able to push a few buttons on a machine and create almost anything, just like a Star Trek-style replicator. Today we are operating at a higher level, with plastic and chocolate and lumps of silicon, but it’s not too crazy to think that we’ll soon have machines that can rearrange atoms into molecules which can then be used to fashion food, drinks, weapons, vehicles — whatever, really. You can make anything if you know its molecular makeup.

But what about living things? Ultimately, a teleporter is just long-range replicator, but instead of creating a cup out of its constituent parts, you are putting together a living, breathing thing. Is a slug, with some 15,000 neurons, really any more complex than a silicon chip with billions of transistors? If we knew the exact molecular structure and genome of a slug, and we had the machinery to make those molecules out of raw materials like carbon, oxygen, and a handful of trace elements, could we create a slug with a 3D printer-cum-replicator? And if we can create a slug, why can’t we create a fruit fly with 100,000 neurons, or a cockroach with a million? Where do we draw the line at replicating real things? Can we draw a line?

Then there is the problem of… excess matter, as chillingly highlighted by Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece The Prestige. To teleport something, not only must it be recreated in a faraway place, but it must also cease to exist in its original location — otherwise it is merely replication, and the world would get very messy if we simply started replicating living things. In the case of a slug, could we “melt down” the original slug into its constituent molecules? Could we do that with a chair or table? Could we do it with a complex animal, like a human? If I teleport myself to another planet, I certainly don’t want my other body hanging around, that’s for sure.

And at this point, the conversation can either go one of two ways. We can discuss the concept of souls and spirits and whether a machine that can create life, or merely fashion molecules into a lifeless facsimile — or we can just leave it here and cross that slippery, sophist causeway when we get there.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

Hmmm the crescent wrench printed is NOT the crescent wrench scanned …. they are two different objects. Therefore scanning and printing of an object is not as easy and straightforward as suggested. ;)

Not withstanding the subterfuge 3-D printing is very cool !

http://www.mrseb.co.uk Sebastian Anthony

It’s possible that the object was tweaked after being scanned in (to flag the red, moving segment, for example).

Try out Photofly! It really is quite straightforward.

Neon Frank

Maybe, but why add a ring at the end of the printed wrench? :P

John Devenport

Not just the ring…if you look at the two shots of both the wrenches in the same frame at the end you’ll notice a lot of significant differences, such as the grooves on the handle are different shapes, and other noticeable differences. What could that mean?

http://www.facebook.com/jcrjohnson Clint Johnson

Like a clone, the replicated you is no more you than would be your twin. It may have any genetic anomalies removed, all residual physical damage repaired and maybe even tweaked a little so that it is a smarter and healthier copy of you… but it is not you.

Run as a thought experiment; They wiped it from your memory but last year, an advanced alien species scanned you (the anal probe is optional- your call) and transmitted a replicant back to their home world for further study. Tonight, the replicant has sent word back that it doesn’t “want my other body hanging around, that’s for sure”. How sanguine are you going to be when they stop by your house to “melt down” the original version?

http://www.mrseb.co.uk Sebastian Anthony

Hehe, yes, well, that gets into a rather messy area that I’d rather not discuss :)

Who knows. Maybe it would be like twins, in that some of them seem to ‘share’ a personality/spirit/whatever. Who’s to say that you can only have one Sebastian or one Clint? If it’s all based on our brain wiring/chemistry, then you could have multiples…

purplelibraryguy

Indeed. It’d never catch on. I mean, it’s fine for the edition of you that’s synthesized elsewhere. But that’s the one that doesn’t exist yet when the decision to “teleport” gets made. The one making the “travel” decision is the one who goes nowhere and then gets killed–not the most thrilling vacation.

Aleksandra Czajka

Please do more research on teleportation because you obviously do not know much. The amount of information involved is way more than you think which is why it’s impossible. And no, not “impossible” like we thought the earth being round is “impossible” way back when. “impossible” like by calculations of quantum physics it’s impossible to know a particles velocity and location at the same time. Teleportation is mathematically impossible. The energy involved to teleport something with all of the exact information makes this task futile.
Further, 15,000 neurons means nothing. What about what all those neurons are composed of? You’ll need to replicate that. You can’t create a biological thing by replacing a neuron with a plastic string. How will you make it work? How will the strings of ‘neurons’ communicate with each other. Without that part, all you’ve got is a plastic doll.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_A6LEYFKPEJNADWS7SJOB373LYA cyan zachary

Isn’t it scary to imagine how fast development is going and how creating things get easier by the year? 3D printer can be handy, though.Fisher Capital Management Warning

JaiGuru

No, it’s not scary.

peter carlyle

the outer limits episode did an episode solely based on the excess matter problem.

You should read Michael Crichton’s “Timeline” where he actually does discuss teleportation as possible, if you don’t want a book then also EPR paradox. Basically you are right, the original will be destroyed for its original atomic structure to appear elsewhere.

http://www.mrseb.co.uk/ Sebastian Anthony

Sounds cool — will check it out :)

JaiGuru

I think the debate on copyright where 3d printing is concerned is a bit unnecessary. There will undoubtably grow a robust open source schematic community that will prove the old internet altruism, “None of us is as good as all of us” true once more, just as there is in the open source software community. All it will take to legally side step GE’s schematic for a spoon is to google up “freeware schematics”, or whatever dumb internet buzz name we give them (i’m looking at you Bing, Google, Yahoo, Twitter, etc.).

The REAL debate that we should all be taking very seriously is the way the culture will use these newly available commodities. I think the first consideration is related to the type of product these printers will be able to make.

You’re not going to see these first gen printers making complex mechanical or electronic devices. More or less, we’re talking small, simplistic items like maybe cup, silverware, MAYBE wrenches (however it should be known that the strength of this matterial willprobably not be anywhere near that of a proper metal wrench)….small incidental household items and crafts. Now, the reason this is relevant is because it is very likely to further expand and reinforce this culture of disposability that we currently have. The items we’ll be printing will not be exceedingly valuable or intensely useful. Provided the raw medium for printing is inexpensive, and it will absolutely have to be for this device to even have a snow ball’s chance in hell on the consumer market, and will thus be seen as readily disposable.

What will the raw medium break down into. WILL it breakdown at all? The average home already generates tons more garbage today than it did 50 year ago. This is so much so that it’s big politics now to figure out where the hell we’re going to be putting it all on a year to year basis. Where is this new source of trash going to go?

To anyone who would argue that we wont behave this way, I would point out that we have a pretty solid history of allowing lax ethics and base behavioral traits to develope around modern technology. We all sit too much in front of the hi def tv’s watching nonsense and playing games. (I’m not anti game, but when a third of us are morbidly obese, that’s your signs we’re sitting too much) We have allowed the most self serving and blatantly rude behavior to develop around cell phone usage. It’s virtually unheard of to NOT interrupt people who’ve taken the effort to actually be in your presence to answer some cell phone or text message and the amount of traffic accidents caused by texting while driving is becoming epidemic. I can go on alld ay with new examples of how we have failed to adapt culturally to new technology.

Any thoughts?

JaiGuru

The other issue that deeply concerns me about these products is the likely inability to apply meaningful regulations to them.

First: What will this medium be made of? Will it be non toxic? Will we
be able to print forks and plates and cups that are SAFE to consume
from? As these products age, will they give off some manner of toxic
dust or crystals that shred our lung tissue on a cellular level?

Second:
How do we regulate the types of products people print? I am largely a
person who has a “none of my business” attitude towards civil liberties.
Provided you’re not damaging others or your community, I don’t really
care what dumb thing you do. But we have this whole network of
regulatory and inspection organizations with the sole purpose of making
sure what ends up on store shelves is reasonably safe to use as
instructed. This means your silverware WONT be toxic. This means your
devices wont spontaneously explode in your hand because the materials
used in it’s moving parts were not strong enough to withstand the forces
of motion. Etc etc. With an open source community, there is virtually
no way to regulate what schematics are downloaded and used. There is
also going to be no way to reliably test the safety of these items
BEFORE schematics are released. This danger grows exponentially as newer
forms of these printers will become available which will undoubtably be
able to create more and more complex objects, perhaps being one day
able to print working machinery and electronics.What about the possibility of printing open source WEAPONS? I am a liberal on most issues but I skew highly conservative on weapons control, believing firmly in the right to protect one’s self, violently if warranted. I don’t say that to stir political debate so much as to offer transparency on my thoughts when I say that I DO still like the fact that weapons have serial numbers and are potentially catalogued so that when one is misused by a violent, dangerous individual, we have another means to track them down. ALL of that flies out the window the very second criminals have the potential to create cheap weaponry. (yes, I know it’s possible to manufacture homemade guns now, but you know damn well and good it’s not a simple procedure. The skill and difficulty in craft and obtaining the necessary materials is enough to deter all but the most motivated of animal.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YFC6ZXFKQ7BNPCEQN6OAEFATYA RobertB

This is not a concern, it is a benefit! Its called freedom!

Bla bla bla

I’ve got my order in now for the 3D design program for a thermonukular weapon of minimal-to mid-sized destruction. I realize that mass destruction is still a few years off…

Dave Walberg

I think there will be a seriously practical incentive to replicate body parts as is currently just beginning to come to fruition. Think bio reproduction of skin for burn victims, or liver cells for cirrhosis, or corneas for blindness, or even more exotic body parts. Talk about useful and pricey? We won’t have to worry about cluttering up landfills but we also don’t have to wonder why medical costs will continue to rise. Some of the new possibilities will make the six million dollar man look look like dime store bargain.

Bla bla bla

Oh, god, I can see it now. “GROW A BIGGER PENIS!”

It’ll be the new SPAM email trend.

purplelibraryguy

The recycling issue is certainly there. Ideally you’d want materials that can be melted down again and re-used. On the other hand, a lot of what people seem interested in is also spare parts for things that break down, so they don’t have to buy a whole new thingie. That could well reduce landfill significantly, and influence the culture towards less disposability. Overall, I think the move towards “make your own” implied by 3d printing will probably be good for the culture. Bad for retailers though–I’m surprised there aren’t efforts to stamp these things out before they catch on.

There are 3d printers that do metal. They’re way too expensive for consumer use so far, but then the plastic ones were way too expensive for consumer use ten years ago.

JaiGuru

Industrial models will surely have these capabilities. Home models probably not. At least not in the beginning. Anyone who tries to use this material in mechanics is going to get a crash course in physics when the stuff shatters and shrapnel flies everywhere.

el_tigger

I guess it is possible to envision an open source electronics fabber. It wouldn’t create standard circuit boards, but rather print out a substrate with plastic, maybe use some solder equivalent for connections and place components with a separate tool. It might even be possible to go “3D” and embed the electronics inside the plastic. That would make debugging harder, but after all, plastic is cheap and there’s no reason not to print bridges, holes or caverns into the “board”.

Sipiwe Mtunzi

whilst printing a cockroach and you’re halfway done, how do you prevent it’s guts from spilling out?

Bla bla bla

Why are people so creeped out about having a copy of oneself? I’d think it’d be great, and I’d have one person I’d know for sure, 100%, would never screw me over. Instant trust and love. Shared goals. It’d be like having an instant bestest-of-all-best friends.

You must really be a crappy person if you’d not want to meet your exact self or have them around.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.